martin ↑
@martin
I like the subtle re-framing Zohran does here. The liberal thing of "Billionares shouldn't exist" is silly and makes post people that say it look dumb. It's an easy tagline but 1 billion is also a bad metric. BUT you do have to ask - what's the marginal benefit of Zuck/Bezos/Gates having their 100th or 200th billion dollars? Surely society would be better of if 80% of that billion went to something else? Obviously not easily done (or done at all?) since most of it is just in a company that they started, but idk https://x.com/Osint613/status/1939351985079394555
4 replies
0 recast
4 reactions
seneca
@seneca
asking what the marginal benefit to the individual assumes the thing that generates the benefit would exist if the ‘benefit’ were not there. imo if you implements caps on wealth creation, the very wealth you are trying to cap will dissapear.
3 replies
0 recast
2 reactions
martin ↑
@martin
I don't disagree, but clearly people would still be incentivized to be very wealthy if the tax rate was quite high - I still want to make $1M a year even if I'd be taxed way more. I don't think the tax rate should approach 100% but by some metrics, billionaires' true tax rate is lower than average peoples'
1 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
seneca
@seneca
sure; change the rates, id love a tax cut. all for it. you’re pointing at a relative thing (avg ppl rate > billionaires). im saying that the framing around “billionaires are the problem” is wrong and plays as a way to rally ppl rather than solve problems. real solutions are likely more about drastically increasing supply of housing, getting everyone employed, etcetc.
1 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
martin ↑
@martin
100% agree that they are not the problem, yep
0 reply
0 recast
0 reaction